ALLEGED SLY GROGSELLING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13208, 15 February 1905, Page 3

ALLEGED SLY GROGSELLING.

SEQUEL TO THE RECENT RAIDS,

Mr H; Y. Widdowson, S.M., was. engaged at n le City Police Court during the greater part ii f yesterday hearing a charge of alleged breach a £ "the liquor laws The court was crowded all J ay, and the proceedings wore watched with r qnsiderablc interest. _' e Laurence Clancy was charged with on a lovember 8 la9t, at Dunediu, selling intoxicat- I iig ■ liquor—namely, beer—npt being duly f; icensed to do so.. Mr J. F. M. Fraser apt lettrod to prosecute, and Mr Hanlon for the ' lefemlunt, who pleaded " Not guilty." 1 Mr' Hanlon asked for an adjournment on * he ground that the person who was, he under- 3 tood, the principal witness'in .the case had j icon indicted for perjury, and it was rather 1 mportant that the issue of that should be J scertained . before .his -Worship should- be £ ailed on to give a decision 'in respect to the ■ s iresent charge. If his 'Worship were to hear 1 ho case and deem it his duty -to convict ® lefendint and inflict a penalty, and the irincipal witness should be subsequently con- j ■icted in the Supreme Court-in respect to his < !vidcncc in a prior, case, it would; cause an I weasy feeling in the. mind of the public, vhicli his Worship would no doubt share, living an adjournment of this kind might' J neaii a good deal of delay, but-he would point . mt that the alleged offence took place on November 8 of last year, and yet no charge 1 vas laid until February 3, so -the police evi- 1 lently thought there was no harm in delay- ' ng three months. He submitted that no ' tarm could result from a further adjournment j .ill it was shown whether the principal witless was a man on whose evidence any jredence could be placed. ' Mr Eraser strongly opposed the application, in the first- place because lie said he could jee no connection with the perjury proßeculion before the court and the present case, fie trusted there was no such connection, because if there was any delay in conducting theSe prosecutions there was very little doubt that the case for the prosecution would be seriously prejudiced. There were good reasons why these prosecutions were not initiated beforp, "id the prosecution had now shown its hand. Following Mr ITanlon's argument jut, a successful, defence of the present case would be a successful prosecution of this principal witness mentioned'for perjury. Some discussion ensued, in which Mr Hanlon said he intended to make the same application jn respect to all the similar cases ill which he appeared. The Magistrate said he saw no' reason why the cases should not be gone on with that day,, and lie .would hear the case against Clancy. Mr Fraser said defendant was formerly holder of a licensed house in Dunedin, and latterly-had been the keeper of supper rooms in a house formerly known as Court's Hotel, Rattray street, and now known as the Trocadero. There wore two witnesses for the prosecution—one a police constable (Ross) and tho other (Hall) a probationer, who would in duo course be a constable. Both men received the same tiny and remuneration as police constables, and no more. Towards midnight on November T Ross and Hall visited the Trocadero. Ross had been there on other occasions. They went into a room, where defendant and other men were playing cards. Hall asked for, and was supplied with, drink, and so was Ross, on the invitation of a friend he had with him, nnd finally Hall lost a game at cards and had to " shout" for the crowd.' On each occasion money was paid, and defendant supplied drink without hesitation or inquiry. In -all respects, ns far as the supplying oi drink was concerned, the house was apparently carried on exactly as if it were a licensed house selling within, nnd not after, hours. Tho reason this and other informations were not laid sooner was that these men were doing their duty and investigating the extent of the siy-Tos: trade in this city, which appeared to be somewhat extensive; and had they disclosed their identify at an earlier date they would have been useless for this purpose, as previous experience had shown again an again. In the present case, indeed, as soon as the identity of one witness was disclosed,, his Worship would hear what was the immediate result. Ross and' Hall were tendered as perfectly honesti straightforward witnesses, speaking the truth without, fear or reward, and he (Mr Fraser) asked tlmt they be treated as simply ordinary witnesses. Thomas James Ross, police. constable, on duty for the last three or tour months in Dunediu, deposed that, he wjs at the Troondero on November 7 last at 11 o'clock, accomr panied by John Ilall and John Bennett, file, latter a chance acquaintance. "Witness had bnen three times previously in the Trocadero. When witness went in defendant Clancy was playing cards with two bookmakers. Hall asked witness and his other comnanion to have a drink, and asked Clancy to join them, calling for three beers. Witness saw Hall pay Clancy 2s, The drinks' were supplied from liottled beer out of a cupboard. Hall then joined with .Clancy mid the two others in a game of cards. Bennett asked witness fo have a drink, and this was supplied by Ciancv, jun., Bennett paying Is for it. Hall lost the game of cribbage, and he was (-ailed on to " shout" for the crowd, whicli ho did. nnd paid Clancy 3s. Witness and his' companions then left the house, it being then 25 minutes to 2. To Mr Hanlon: Tho men he had seen playing cards with Clancy and had called bookmakers he had seen taking bets on the Gore racecourse. Witness was sworn in as a constable on June 16 last, and came to Dnncdin in September last. Since-June he had been working in a reef gold mine, and in Dunedin nt Donald Reid a'jd Co.'s, Johnson and Co.'s (Maelaggan street), the Express Company, and Fergusson and Mitchell's, and Teceivcd a salary from these firms besides his salary from (he Police Department He started his liquor crusade immediately after coming to Dunedin. Witness went to Mrs Johnson's selling coffee essence, and previous to getting drink there visited her house to get known. He took Hall there also, and had drink there.' Mr F-raser objected to Mr Hanlon introducing irrelevant matter and to the method of his cross-examination, which, he said, had palpably one object only and a similar purpose. Mr Hanlon contended that it was the only method lie could advantageously adopt, and that he was testing the credibility of the witness. He proceeded (his "Worship having Tuled in his favour) to cross-examine the witness as to his visit to other premises where he obtained drink. The court at this stage adjourned for luncheon. On resuming His Worship asked Mt Hanlon if (lie object of his cross-examination was to test the witness's accuracy or his credibility. Mr Hanlon: Yes, your Worship; that is the object. Since the court rose I. have looked up Hip authorities, nnd I find Ihr.fc 1 can ask any question, even though irrelevant to Ihe issue, in order to test a witness's credibility. His Worship: Your contention is that vou can go all over the world .with the witness and seek for information in order to test his credibility? Mr Hanlon: Yes; if I consider it necessary. If two persons concoct a story they are likely to agree in regard lo that 'lory, but if either or both are taken outside .of that story an examination on other matters would perhaps go to test their credibility. Mr Fraser: The object of the cross-exami-nation is to get at the brief in the other cases. I have never seen a cross-examination conducted as this is being conducted. Of course, I know what the Tcsult will be. The cross-examination ot the witness Ross was then continued, and in reply to a question from Mr Hanlon he said he had been engaged on the West Coast in working up sly-grog esses. He might' get something special ill the way of payment for sly-grog convictions, but lied no guarantee that he would do co. He believed he would get something extra. He was the T. J. Ross whose name appeared in the Gazette as having been paid a special reward for liquor convictions. Mr Hanlon: Are you the samo person who 'gave evidence in a. case of disorderly conduct at this court last week, and have you had a chargc of perjury laid against yon?

His Worship:: The answer to that question, whichever way, it, is/ will not influence me r in. the slightest degree. It would be a different matter, it the witness had been p convicted of-, iierjury. •-.■ ■ . '.«j "Cross-examination ;by.• Mr Hanlon con- •*? tinned.:'. YesjY'l'am the'.perEon against whom P tho charge you, refer/to.i has been made. : .i.A " man 'named. Hall .and' another' named, Benrielt aintl myself; entered Clancy's - prcipises at JJ abo'nt 11 o'clock 011 theTnight of • the 7th November last. .We went upstairs and into S. P 1 room'at the top of the landing. After we P' entered Hall asked Clancy for three beers, P : and asked him to join them, and witness saw P Hall pay for the driuks. • Tho beer was taken te from a cupboard in the room. Glancy poured hi the beer, into the glasses, which were taken it from the cupboard. The money was paid qi just about the time it was handed round, ci Clancy put the money loose in his pocket. V Hall then played cribbage with Clancy and fi two others]', and witness waited 'for (hem and ci had a, drink.-with Bennett in the meantime, si It was not Cjancy, but the young icllow, who n supplied it:-. He came in when the others p started to play cards. As far as witness ti linew nobody rang for him. He would not ii swear that another bottle* was opened to serve m them.. Hall lost the game of cards, anil had to shout drinks for 'tho crowd. He paid for C ; these with a : 2s'piece and Is.. Clancy sup- b | plied tile ; drinks. • . I' John Hall, a probationer in the Police r( Force, said Hie was at the Trocadero at 11 jr o'clock on the night of the 7th nit-, in com- t< pany .with Ross and-a man named Bennett. 0 | They went into a card room at the top of a c; I staircase. Clancy and some others were playing cards.- "Witness asked Clancy to supply a drinks and to have a drink with witness ami || those who were with liim. Beer was supplied, j; and witness paid 2s for what was supplied. They afterwards played cards for drinks, and witness paid for six drinks, which Clancy a supplied. The- drinks were paid for with a ], two-shilling piece and a-- shilling. To Mr Hanlon: Witness was in Nelson s when he made. an application to join the j Police Force. Previous to that ho was work- j ing on farms and doing labourer's work. He (] was sent down the coast to detect sly grog- (, selling. He was not getting any special pay j for his work; all he was receiving was his c day's pay. There was no understanding that g lie was .to get anything special for sly-grog convictions, Witness was on the West Coast iVith Ross, and assisted him in his sly-grog 0 work there. He had been engaged at Ash- .{, burton, as well Is on the West Coast and in Dunedin, in an endeavour to get convictions for sly grog-belling. He was receiving 13s per j cUy for his work,'and the payment included a his travelling expenses. Witness was not ( supplied, with money with which to purchase ( liquor, He did not try to loss a game of ( cards in order that he would have to pay for 0 drinks; they could have had drinks without B that. lie nad talked over the case with Ross, j but had mot talked with him on the subject „ during the adjournment. 1 Mr Fraser intimated that the evidence sub- i mitted wan all the Crown - intei'dted to offer. j Mr Hanlon said lio would have to make j another application for an adjournment. The j offence took place on' the Bth November last— , over three months ago,—and the defendant's j first knowledge of the case against him, o>- ± tho persons who were present, was obtained j during tho hearing of the case that day. , Frcm what had been said it was anparent j there were others in addition !o the two Crown witnesses-who were nresent when the , alleged sale look place, but these oereons were j not called bv t-h? prosecution. There was tlie . man Bennett, and also others who were .nle'ying cards, The Crown had not. called these J witnesses, and he contended Ilia'- .an oppor- ■ (unity should lie given to defendant to call \ any of those witnesses. His client had been , put in a prejudiced position owing (o the charge not bfing laid immediately aft,"r the offence was alleged to have occurred. He nut it to the court in support of his apnlication that his client had not had an opportunity to prepare a defonce. arid he was in common fairness entitled (o such opportunity. His learner! friend would probably sucgest that if an adjournment was granted (he ends of justice anight possibly be defeated; but lo that he would Teply by saying that, a snatch conviction. secured upon only a portion of evidence procurable might, also defeat the ends . of justice. The Crown had. not 'even called the third man, Bennett,, end he contended it was the Crown's duty to call any wilnesits who could throw any reasonable light upon the matter,' Mr 'Eraser: My learned friend is wrongly instructed. His has been aware o( the prosecution for S9iua tim:. t This day isst week Clancy had said to Rosa, " I see yell have put mo np, and I know who your friend is." The Crown has laid its case before the ( ccurt, and I contend it is not desirable or usual to adjourn a case ill order that - a defence may bo prepareS-and that is what it i really amounts to. He submitted that his friend should be called on by the court to proceed with (he defence. His Worship saicl if he was satisfied the epplicatioh was bona fide and for the purpose of bringing forward the witnesses he mi°ht grant, an adjournment but Mr Hanlon. ha'd not said he would bring forward the witnesses. Mr Fraser: Mr Clancy and his son are inccurt. Why does my friend not- put them .m fh r * box? His Worship: I am afraid I cannot grant 1 the adjournment asked for. i • Mr Hanlon said he had to go out of (own i a little after 5 o'clock, <md as it was then 5 o'clock ho thought it was not fair to ask him | to go on with a defence at that hour. But as ' it had been so decided lie would go on. He 1 would not call any witnesses, but would refer ' to the evidence, which was neither Btrong, 1 cogent, nor consistent. The two witnesses • called wore engaged in a work that was not voTy creditable. They admitted that not. only in Dunedin, out elsewhere, they had been going | round trying lo get people to sell liquor. Boss, on the West Coast according to the G-azette j and his own admissions, had been paid a • Bpecial sum for securing convictions. He : (counsel) understood the pay was il per convic- ' lion, and if that was so it wus a sorry day ' for the colony, and opened the door wide for I perjury. Where a man in a case of that kind was paid by results there was a strong inducement to commit perjury. He did not know j whether Eoss had spoken the truth in the preI sent, case; but lie seemed to have a good memory' for everything that occurred in a building three months ago, but could- not remember j what preceded it or came after it, and cou'd 1 not remember what occurred more recently. > The ordinary policeman could not be induced to do the work such men as Ross undertook, 5 ( and he recognised. such work was perhaps J 'necessary; and that it was necessary to pay specially for it. It was a. class of spying . work that did not recommend itself to many, but whon it was undertaken the evidence of > those who undertook it should be specially t scrutinised by the bonch. And in this connection he would, point out that a charge of s perjury was at present pending against Eoss. ; Ilis Worship: Every person is innocent 1. until ho is proved gmity, t Mr Hanlon: Quite so, your Worship. But a if it was proved that Ross had been guilty of perjury in'one case, it could: be assumed i he' would commit porjury in another. The s other witness (Ilai.1) 'was on a. different footing B from Ross. The latter was a .policeman, and •..'though he undertook work that policemen generally were < averse to, ho was at least / doing what 'he had sworn to do. But Hall '. had no such claim. He was au informer. He f did work for payment which no decent man 9 wou'.d engage in, The filthy baipain made between this man and the .Government was'that if lie secured convictions for sly grog-selling ho r would, as a. reward, bo promoted to the Police n Vorce. He had. been induced to do this work ' because llie reward he referred to'was heid out to him in addition to the pay he was 3 receiving. He was 'a class of witness who came into court to say what he could to secure " a conviction. Rosa and Hall seemed to bo p men to whom the.work wus congenial: they £ could get plenty of drink, and they evidently " availed thcmsolve3 of their opportunities. They ? did not rest- content with one sale, but secured several, although one sale, so far as evidence 9 was concerned, was os good m. three .or more. The time was" when sobriety was a recommendation for a man to get into the Police Force, but it now seemed to ,be different. Counsol t thon. referred.to the unfairness of being com- ' polled to go on at that late hour, and said lie would leave tho casq where it was, and if it , was necessary, afterwards he would move the , Supremo Court to get a rehearing. His Worship said lie had no wish to prejudice Mr-Hanlon's case, and said if he gave a bona fide assuranco that if the case was adjourned 1 ho would call witnesses he would be induced to grant an adjournment. If ho intended to call witnesses, why. were not some of those who were said to be present called ? Mr Hanlon said lie would give' this assurance: If he could-find the' others who were «vid to be present when the sales were said to have taken p'ace, and they would give evidence, ''he would produce them; but if they said the'sales" did tako place, he would advise Clancy to plead guilty. • - ■ His Worship: If. the defendant is put into the box now I will grant an adjournment. Mr Hanlon: If tho court 'will not accept my assurance I-will leave it at that. I will not'put the defendant in the box. His Worship (after consideration).: I will adjourn -'the -. case till half-past 10 a.m. on Thursday, next.; . It was then arranged that- a of other cases arising out of the recent raid should be adjourned to the same date, and the court adjourned at 5.30 p.m.'